868 F. Supp. 2d 702
E.D. Tenn.2012Background
- Plaintiff Kinser alleges defamation, IIBR, and civil conspiracy by Bechtel and Sun Technical after termination for living allowance fraud.
- Bechtel investigated Plaintiff's living allowances; Plaintiff terminated May 28, 2009, due to ongoing investigation by Inspector General.
- Plaintiff's security clearances were affected; Defendants reportedly informed TVA and others of alleged fraud.
- Plaintiff learned of the existence of a PADS “flag” by August 2009 and by November 20, 2009, suspected Defendants’ reports.
- Plaintiff filed suit November 22, 2010; all claims are governed by a one-year statute of limitations.
- Court previously stayed dismissal to decide timeliness under Tennessee’s discovery rule for libel
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Tennessee discovery rule tolls libel claims. | Kinser relies on rare discovery-rule applicability. | Bechtel argues discovery rule rarely applies. | Discovery rule does not toll; untimely under statute of limitations. |
| Whether Kinser knew or should have known of defamation before 11/20/2009. | Kinser did not know content of communications until Nov. 20, 2009. | Kinser should have known earlier from termination and PADS flag. | Kinser knew or could have discovered defamation earlier; not timely saved by discovery rule. |
Key Cases Cited
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (U.S. 1986) (summary judgment standard; burden shifting)
- Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio, 475 U.S. 574 (U.S. 1986) (summary judgment standard; evidence viewed in light favorable to non-movant)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (U.S. 1986) (genuine dispute material facts; standard for summary judgment)
- Lansing Dairy, Inc. v. Espy, 39 F.3d 1339 (6th Cir. 1994) (summary judgment and burden of proof)
- Leary v. Daeschner, 349 F.3d 888 (6th Cir. 2003) (standard for summary judgment; burden on non-movant)